Related

417 thoughts on “David Colby’s Poached Egg”

It is plain and obvious that the government has no respect for the people that elect them. Very sadly we keep electing these people who care NOTHING for us.
These elected officials are real life monsters
– what else can you call someone so willfully blind?
– so willfully callous and morally corrupt?
Who are the people that elect these real life monsters?
Who are the people willing to be associated with these real life monsters?

Volkswagen AG’s former Chief Executive Officer Martin Winterkorn was charged in a Michigan federal court with conspiracy and wire fraud in relation to a probe into the German automaker’s efforts to cheat U.S. diesel emissions testing, according to an indictment unsealed Thursday.

Winterkorn, who stepped down from his role as CEO days after the scandal was revealed, is accused of conspiring to defraud the U.S. and violate the Clean Air Act. The carmaker didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment. He is the highest-ranking person to be charged in the matter.

VW admitted in September 2015 that it outfitted about 11 million diesel cars worldwide with a defeat device, embedded software that allowed the vehicles to recognize when they were being tested in laboratory conditions, and to reduce emissions to meet acceptable levels. According to the indictment, Winterkorn was briefed on both the emissions issue and how U.S. regulators were threatening to delay certifying 2016 cars for sale, at a July meeting in Wolfsburg, Germany, where the company is based.

The carmaker pleaded guilty in January 2017 to using false statements to import cars into the U.S. and to obstructing investigations, and paid $4.3 billion in penalties. Two other employees have pleaded guilty over their role in the affair, and five other executives have been indicted by the U.S. and remain in Germany, avoiding arrest. They include executives who led engine development as well as the failed efforts to design a diesel engine that would meet the tougher emissions standards the U.S. adopted for 2007, as well as another liaison to U.S. regulators.

Still interested in the half-billion dollar ($500,000,000.00) “Charge of Easement” that BNP Paribas took over in 2011 for the eighteen (18) 1.65-megawatt Vestas wind turbines developed/operated under three (3) 9.9-megawatt RESOP contracts from the Ontario Power Authority by Mike Crawley & company / AIM PowerGen / AIM SOP Phase I LP / International Power Canada / GDF Suez / Engie at Clear Creek, Norfolk County, Ontario, Canada.

‘[excerpt] The United States Department of Justice announced on June 30 2014 that BNP Paribas S.A. (BNPP), a global financial institution headquartered in Paris, was pleading guilty to knowingly and willfully conspiring to commit violations of the International Economic Powers Act and the Trading with the Enemy Act.

Between 2004 and 2012, BNPP illegally processed billions of dollars of transactions through the U.S. financial system on behalf of Sudanese, Iranian and Cuban entities subject to U.S. economic sanctions. BNPP also pled guilty in the New York State Supreme Court to falsifying business records and conspiring to falsify business records.

BNPP agreed to pay $8.9 billion (USD), the largest penalty ever obtained by the Department of Justice in a criminal economic sanctions case, and the largest penalty in any criminal case involving a bank.

“Working with financial institutions based in these countries and others, between 2004 and 2012, BNP engaged in a complex and pervasive scheme to illegally move billions through the U.S. financial system on behalf of sanctioned entities,” Attorney General Holder said. “BNPP structured transactions in needlessly complicated ways — using sophisticated techniques that served no legitimate business purpose, but that allowed them to obscure the truth: that these transactions violated the law and should not have been occurring in the first place.”

BNPP’s conduct was sophisticated, involving the manipulation of documents, records and transactions, and the use of other “satellite” banks as “fronts” to evade detection.

“BNPP deliberately disregarded U.S. law of which it was well aware, and placed its financial network at the services of rogue nations, all to improve its bottom line.”

“Remarkably, BNPP continued to engage in this criminal conduct even after being told by its own lawyers that what it was doing was illegal.” And when contacted by law enforcement BNPP chose not to fully cooperate.

“This failure to cooperate had a real effect — it significantly impacted the government’s ability to bring charges against responsible individuals, sanctioned entities and satellite banks.” said Deputy Attorney General Cole.’

‘[excerpt] Hon. David Robert Peterson […] became the leader of the Ontario Liberal Party in 1982. Hon. Peterson served as Premier of Ontario from 1985 to 1990 […] He serves as Chairman of the Board of Transmission Developers Inc. […] Riverbank Power Corporation […] He serves as a Director of Ventus Energy Inc. and Direct Energy Marketing […] BNP Paribas (Canada) […]’

Wikipedia
‘[excerpt] Deborah Drake Matthews is a former politician in Ontario, Canada. She was a Liberal member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from 2003 to 2018 who represented the riding of London North Centre. Matthews served as a cabinet minister in the governments of Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne. […] She is the third of nine children born to Donald Jeune Matthews, former president of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. Her mother is Joyce Eleanor Matthews, and her sister is Shelley Peterson, the wife of former Ontario Premier David Peterson. […] Matthews was elected as President of the Ontario Liberal Party in 2003 and held the post until resigning in late 2006. […] On October 7, 2009, Matthews was named Minister of Health and Long-Term Care […] She was reappointed as Minister of Health and Long-Term Care on October 20, 2011. […] Following her reelection in 2014, Matthews was shuffled from Health to a revamped role as President of the Treasury Board. On June 13, 2016, she retained her position as Deputy Premier and was also appointed as Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Development. She was additionally responsible for Digital Government. Matthews was shuffled out of Cabinet on January 17, 2018, having declining re-election in the 2018 election.’

UPDATE: Private Prosecution of Ontario Minister of the Environment and Climate Change
Judge allows Crown another 60 days to review evidence of the last decade……
Do you know what 60 days of sleep deprivation will do to “the average person” including children?

This is a stalling tactic used to get the government through to the election without having this story hit the headlines…so obvious how these stalling tactics are being used.
This government does not care if people are harmed for another 60 days. There’s plenty more than loss of sleep.
People need to go to the Waubra Foundation website to get the full list of symptoms.

The “Investigation” is mandated by the law, the Ontario Health Protection and Promotion Act (“HPPA”), Section 11:

“Where a complaint is made to a board of health or a medical officer of health that a health hazard related to occupational or environmental health exists in the health unit served by the board of health or the medical officer of health, the medical officer of health shall notify the ministry of the Government of Ontario that has primary responsibility in the matter and, in consultation with the ministry, the medical officer of health shall investigate the complaint to determine whether the health hazard exists or does not exist. ”

The HPPA also states at Section 61 that the local Board of Health “shall superintend and ensure the carrying out” of the Investigation part of the Act.

This writer is not aware of anything in the Green Energy and Green Economy Act nor any other legislation in Canada that exempts these fiduciaries from their Investigation responsibilities defined in the HPPA.

Over the course of the last decade, citizens in Huron County, Ontario and elsewhere have insisted on the carrying out of the HPPA Duty to Investigate their Complaints about harm caused by newly-developed industrial wind turbine projects.

In Huron County, Ontario, Dr. Erica Clark (Ph.D.) conspired with the local Medical Officer of Health, the local Health Unit and the local Board of Health, to design a process purporting to be a HPPA “Investigation”.

They consumed local Health Unit resources intending to study Complainants who reported being harmed. The process was designed to take many months, stretching into years, even though it is known that the effects of exposure to these industrial emissions are cumulative; that is, the longer they go on, the worse it becomes.

“About a hundred people have, so far, taken part in an ongoing study about the health effects of wind turbines in Huron County.

The study will examine reported negative health effects associated with turbines, including noise, vibration and light.

Epidemiologist Dr. Erica Clark says anyone living in Huron County within 10 kilometres of a wind turbine is eligible for the study.

Clark says an interim report is in the works, detailing some of the results gathered at this juncture in the study.
Those include the process for recruitment, how many people are taking part, and preliminary results from the registration survey.

Clark is encouraging those with summer homes near wind turbine sites to take part in the ongoing study.

In late 2014, Health Canada released the results of a study, which found no link between wind turbines and adverse health in those living nearby.

The study did, however, link turbine noise with increased levels of annoyance of nearby residents.”

The Health Protection and Promotion Act defines HEALTH HAZARD:
“(a) a condition of a premises,
(b) a substance, thing, plant or animal other than man, or
(c) a solid, liquid, gas or combination of any of them,
that is likely to have an adverse effect on the health of any person.”

Being located within the impact zone of radiation-emitting industrial wind turbines may be a condition of a premises.

The Ontario Public Health Standards can be used to evaluate whether or not local health units and boards of health have fulfilled their legal responsibilities.

You be the judge…

In the “Health Hazard Prevention and Management” section of the OPHS, the stated Goal is:

“To prevent or reduce the burden of illness from health hazards in the physical environment.”

“Societal Outcomes” to be achieved are listed:” – There is a reduced incidence of adverse health outcomes from exposure to chemical, radiological, biological, and other physical factors in the environment
– There is reduced public exposure to health hazards.
– There is increased capacity on the part of the public and community partners to address the risk factors that reduce health hazard exposure and diseases. ”

“Board of Health Outcomes” are identified:
” – The board of health achieves timely and effective detection and identification of exposures of human health concern and associated public health risks, trends and illnesses.
– The public and community partners are aware of health hazard incidents and risks in a timely manner.”

Dr. Richard Mann at the University of Waterloo has been diligently examining industrial wind turbine sound emissions and the related human health impacts. For many years it has been known that certain types of infrasound are very disturbing to human beings. Dr. Mann has documented the evolution of his wind turbine research on his website http://www.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~mannr

Here is one excerpt describing Dr. Mann’s recent research:

‘[excerpt] CS Tech Report. CS-2018-01 (PDF).
Title. Research Report on Infra Sound.
Author. Richard Mann.
Date. February 25, 2018; public release: March 2, 2018.
Abstract. We have successfully produced infrasound, as a mirror of that produced by Industrial Wind Turbines, in a chamber capable of accommodating a human test subject. This will permit others, with appropriate medical training and ethical oversight, to research the effects of infrasound on humans.’
Residents in Ontario & globally have likened the experience of living within an industrial wind turbine electricity generation zone as “Torture.” The regulators and the industry deny this fact urgently needs to be reconciled to prevent the harm and liabilities from proliferating.

Dr. Mann is contributing to a possible resolution of this regrettable situation. Some observe that he has, in effect, created what some would say is a “torture chamber”. Ethics reviewers are now in the position of needing to determine whether it is ethical to study humans in a laboratory environment that replicates the real-world situation our governments say is legal, ethical & fair-game, or not.

The problem is so pervasive; the following article was published approximately the same time as the comment above.

“Tortured by the turbines”
Credit: By Emma Cowing and Campbell Thomas | Scottish Daily Mail | Saturday, August 25, 2018 (truncated for length)https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2018/08/26/tortured-by-the-turbines/
‘[excerpt] The first time it happened, Pat Spence thought she was having a heart attack.
‘I woke up in the middle of the night in a panic with my heart hammering and thought, “Oh my God, this is it.” I was terrified.’
Alone in her remote farmhouse in a secluded part of Ayrshire, Pat lay back in bed and breathed deeply as her heartbeat started to slow. A musician, she was accustomed to tuning in to the sounds around her.
‘That’s when I became aware of a steady “thump, thump, woof, woof” sound,’ she says. ‘Eventually it dawned on me: the only thing around here big enough to make a sound like that is a wind turbine.’
Over the past ten years Pat, 75, has watched helpless as her rural idyll has been turned into a nightmare.
Where she once gazed out on peaceful woodland, fields and moors she is now surrounded by a whopping 184 wind turbines. She says the sound and vibrations of the turbines have made her ill, causing serious pains in her ears, high blood pressure and terrible headaches.
‘My life is an absolute hell because of this and I’ve just had enough,’ she says.
‘I just can’t live with it any more.’ […]
‘Sometimes the clash of them wakes me up in the night. It’s almost as if they get into sync with each other. Every now and again there’s a crash and the house shakes.
‘It hurts my ears, they become very painful, and when it’s really bad it’s as though someone’s banging a hammer on the back of my head.
‘When it gets that bad I just grab the car keys, get in the car and go. I’ve slept in my car dozens of times over the past few years.
‘I try to drive somewhere out of the way to find somewhere to sleep. Some days I just don’t get any sleep at all. Whenever there’s a windy day my heart just sinks.’
Sitting at her kitchen table on a blustery August day, I can see what she means. Listen carefully and there is a very low hum, a deep sound right at the edge of my hearing.
And something else, deeper still, a unpleasant vibration that I can feel at my temples. Within just 30 minutes of being in Pat’s house, I have developed a headache.
Pat has started taking medication for high blood pressure, which she believes has been caused by the wind turbines, and says she finds it hard to get anything done in the house now, as she simply doesn’t want to be there.
A once well-tended cottage garden and veg patch have grown out of control as she can’t face being outside, and she says that in the past few years the house has developed cracks in the wall, despite never having experienced structural issues in the past, and damp that she cannot find the source of. […]
The whole situation has made her miserable.
‘I don’t have a life any more,’ she says. ‘I give the odd flute lesson but I can’t have pupils here because of the turbines, so I have to go to them. I play chamber music with friends and they have to host. It’s little things like that. I can’t even live properly in my own house.’
For its part, ScottishPower has installed noise and vibration recording equipment at her home to monitor the issue, but Pat is refusing to allow workers to remove it until she is given the data. She claims they are withholding the information because they fear an academic, Dr Mariana Alves-Pereira, who studies low frequency noise and infrasound and its effects on health and who Pat has commissioned to analyse the figures from her property, will skew the findings in her favour.
‘Dr Mariana Alves-Pereira is a reputable professor specialising in acoustics from wind turbines, with peer reviewed material that can be checked out,’ she says. […]
Meanwhile, her case has been taken up by the Independent Noise Working Group, which challenges claims made by the wind turbine industry, and Susan Crosthwaite, UK representative for the European Platform Against Windfarms and who lives near Pat.
Dr Crosthwaite cites the case of Kay Siddell and her husband John, who in 2014 abandoned their home in Old Dailly, 15 miles from Barrhill, after a 53-turbine wind farm was built near their home, which Siddell claimed caused similar symptoms to Pat’s.
‘Kay Siddell had sound measuring equipment but nothing was ever done about it. In the end she had to leave,’ says Dr Crosthwaite. ‘Pat has the right to live in a home where she feels safe and happy and where she can sleep, not this continuous noise pollution which is like a torture chamber to her.’ […]
Although Pat would like to take legal action, she cannot afford it.
Instead, her hope now is that ScottishPower might buy her out.
‘It’s the only thing that can happen. They’re not going to stop 184 turbines for a few people.’
She says she couldn’t imagine putting the house on the market, or that it would sell, surrounded as it is now by wind farms.
‘Could I persuade someone else to come and live in these conditions? Could I stand there and say “this is the ideal place”? I just don’t think I could do it. To have any chance of selling it I would have to tell lies and I don’t do that.’’

And Sommer is right: the harm caused by acute and chronic exposure to industrial wind turbine operations include many other very serious, debilitating health impacts.

For example, at Clear Creek in Norfolk County, Ontario, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment’s Officer Tim Webb, Badge #125 was on-site at victims’ homes in 2010, responding to complaints of harm being caused by the recently-constructed wind turbines.

While in the wind turbine zone, Officer Webb had admitted to sensing some of the adverse effects. Following-up, the complainant asked Officer Webb to describe his experience.

Here is that series of correspondence dating back to October 2010. Readers are encouraged to consider that Officer Webb’s exposure was very brief, accumulating, maybe, to a few hours — he was not attempting to live [die] there as most victims were.

Hi Tim,
Could you please describe, in your words the vibrations that you sensed at our house last week at Clear Creek. I was trying to describe those vibrations to friends last weekend in my words. The noise/vibration were not present last weekend.

I would describe it as a sensation that was neither a discernable sound nor a detectable vibration, but somewhere between the two. Definitely more felt than heard. If I concentrated very hard, I could sense something below the hearing threshold, but above what can be felt as a vibration. I have to say, though, that it takes an unusual amount of concentration to even notice it.
Tim Webb
Provincial Officer #125
Hamilton District Office
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Tel: (905) 521-7727
Fax: (905) 521-7806
Spills/After-Hours: 1-800-268-6060

“Interim Report for Huron County Wind Turbine Study about Noise, Vibration and Light, July 2018” released today.

The “Interim Report” omits to mention the basis of this Huron County Health Unit allocation of resources is the Health Protection and Promotion Act Duty to Investigate.

The “Interim Report” erroneously states: “In Ontario, wind turbines must be at least 550 metres from a private dwelling.”

There are many documented examples of wind turbines that were constructed and are operating closer than 550 metres from the homes of non-consenting persons.

The “Interim Report” states: “Approximately 30,000 Huron County residents are eligible to participate in the study. […] To date, 105 eligible Huron County residents have signed consent forms to participate in the Huron County Wind Turbine Study about Noise, Vibration and Light. Of those, 40 have completed the Registration Survey and 35 have been providing information through the Observation Diary. Of the 40 people who have completed a Registration Survey so far, half are male and most are not leaseholders for a wind turbine company.”

Leaseholders are biased in that they may have contracted to limit their rights to complain, and may be liable for any damages that are caused from something that occurs on their property.

The “Interim Report” repeats the unproven, misleading and possibly negligent contention: “Further, the Medical Officer of Health does not have the authority to write an order under section 13 of the Health Protection and Promotion Act to curtail or shut down wind turbines.”

To make such an allegation may reveal the Investigators are biased in favour of allowing wind turbines to continue harming persons including children.

The “Interim Report” finds: “Approximately 60% of respondents reported they have been bothered, disturbed or annoyed by noise, vibration, light and/or sensations from the wind turbines. Noise was most commonly reported.”

This finding supports the conclusion of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment’s commissioned expert, licensed professional engineer, Mr. Brian Howe, HGC Engineering, who reported in 2010:

“The audible sound from wind turbines, at the levels experienced at typical receptor distances in Ontario, is nonetheless expected to result in a nontrivial percentage of persons being highly annoyed. As with sounds from many sources, research has shown that annoyance associated with sound from wind turbines can be expected to contribute to stress related health impacts in some persons.”

The Huron County Board of Health, taxpayers, persons affected by the IWTs and anyone concerned about justice in Canada should be demanding to know what is the purpose of this exercise designed and being carried out (at significant expense) by Erica Clark on behalf of the Health Unit?

The Ontario Health Protection and Promotion Act which mandates the Investigation “to determine whether a health hazard exists or does not exist” defines “Health Hazard” to include a condition of a premises (ie – proximity to IWTs) “that is likely to have an adverse effect on the health of any person.”

It is already understood that exposure to industrial wind turbines can have an adverse effect on the health of persons. The Interim Report acknowledges this.

Based on what is already known, the Health Unit should declare the IWTs are a “Health Hazard”.

They should be increasing awareness of health risk factors; adapting and supplementing national and provincial health communications strategies; and developing and implementing regional/local communications strategies, such that there is a reduced incidence of adverse health outcomes from exposure, there is reduced public exposure to the health hazards, there is increased capacity on the part of the public and community partners to address the risk factors that reduce health hazard exposure and diseases, and that the public and community partners are aware of health hazard incidents and risks in a timely manner.

But this Health Unit is not doing that. Instead they are perpetuating the misconception that “One of the contested issues regarding wind turbines is WHETHER they cause adverse effects on human health at the setback currently mandated by the Government of Ontario.” (page 3 of the Interim Report, emphasis added)

This misleading approach deprives affected people of vital information that they need to be able to protect themselves and their families and communities.

Going forward in this exercise, taking the position that we need to study these people so that we can better understand exactly how wind turbines negatively effect people, while omitting to state it has already been determined that wind turbines ARE a Health Hazard, can be interpreted as human experimentation on non-consenting persons.

– The Ontario and Canada governments contracted to install and operate devices that were known to cause health risks and harm to some people.
– The governments identified knowledge gaps and vulnerable populations.
– The governments committed to “monitoring” and “studying” the effects of the deployment of the technology, reserving the rights to adjust the schemes as evidence of the effects surfaced.
– The development scheme was designed such that the developers were NOT required to get the CONSENT of every person who would be exposed to the health risks of the development and operation of the devices.

“Freedom from Unwarranted Experimentation”
Curt Devlin, Boston College, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, USA
Devlin, C. (2017) Freedom from Unwarranted Experimentation. Open Journal of Social Sciences , 5, 23-48. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2017.55003
‘[excerpt] Within the medical research community, many efforts have been made to refine the definition of human research. As noted earlier, however, these tend to focus their attention almost exclusively on medical and scientific research pro per se ; and tend to focus on formal investigation only. For example, the Research Ethics Committee (of the World Health Organization (WHO) (2009) [13] has published the following: Any social science, biomedical, behavioural or epidemiological activity that entails systematic collection or analysis of data with the intent to generate new knowledge; in which human beings: 1) are exposed to manipulation, intervention, observation or other interaction with investigators, either directly or through alteration of their environment; or 2) become individually identifiable through investigators’ collection, preparation or use of biological material or medical or other records. […]

One mitigation tactic used by the wind industry is especially telling for this discussion. Most industrial wind facilities systematically collect operational data about IWT performance and operating conditions, known as supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA). When complaints about adverse health effects mount, developers or public officials sometimes collect health information from complainants about the associated time, location, and environmental conditions. Ostensibly, these data are then correlated with the SCADA data and analyzed for patterns to guide mitigation tactics, such as depowering under those conditions. Typically, the analysis is done in complete absence of any training in public health or true clinical expertise, based on the patently absurd claim that exposing the SCADA data to such scrutiny would compromise trade secrets. Intentionally withholding or suppressing information about the causes of adverse health effects for this reason is flagrantly unethical and a manifest violation of informed consent.
Tracking complaints, compiling public health records, and recording SCADA data, all fall easily within the systematic data collection identified by the WHO Ethics Committee as a hallmark of human research in the definition cited […]’

The first principle of the Nuremberg Code is the voluntary consent of the human research subject.

Erica Clark, acting for the Huron County Health Unit has “engaged in the experiment” and so “the duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon” her and “may not be delegated to another with impunity.”

Excerpt rom the Nuremberg Code:
‘ 1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.’

‘[excerpt] The response to the Huron County Health Unit study into possible health impacts of wind turbines has been surprisingly low at this point. Just over 100 people have registered to take part in the study.

Dr. Erica Clark says they want to hear from anyone who lives within 10 kilometres of a turbine, and they want to hear from people who believe the turbines have impacted their health as well as people who say they have not suffered any negative health impact.

The deadline for registering as a participant for the study is October 31.
Dr. Clark says copies for all of the materials for the study are on the Huron County Health Unit website by just clicking on the wind turbine button. You can also get a hard copy of the documentation at the Huron County Health Unit office or at any Huron County library branch.’

– Persons who have died or are suffering from conditions known to be caused or aggravated by exposure to industrial wind turbine emissions (such as sleep deprivation, hospitalization, cancer & c.) may be unable to participate in Ms. Clarke’s survey.

– There may be lack of confidence or doubt about the scientific and or legal validity of this Huron County exercise.

– Leaseholders may be under contract prohibiting them from expressing about negative impacts of the industrial wind turbines.

– Similarly, some negatively effected persons may have been “bought out” and “gagged’ by non-disclosure agreements.

WCO Facebook.
Meeting this Monday, just announced.
Will this meeting be recorded? It does not appear open to the public.

Quote:”
Monday at Queen’s Park: The Standing Committee on Social Policy will meet to consider Bill 34, An Act to repeal the Green Energy Act, 2009 and to amend the Electricity Act, 1998, the Environmental Protection Act, the Planning Act and various other statutes. Among the presenters will be Tom Adams, energy consultant; Bruce Pardy, Queen’s University professor of law and Economics, and Warren Howard, vice-president, Wind Concerns Ontario”

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment

Name *

Email *

Website

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

This article is the work of the source indicated. The copyright of this article is owned by the author or publisher indicated. Its availability here constitutes a "fair use" as provided for in section 29 of the Canadian Copyright Law as well as in similar "fair dealing" exceptions of the copyright laws of other nations, as part of Ontario Wind Resistance's noncommercial effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a provincial and global audience seeking such information.